NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ABELAR-PEREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70988 

Agency No. A200-822-944 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Abelar-Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70988 

We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 

1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 

371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 

2006).

The BIA did not err in finding that two of Abelar-Perez’s proposed social 

groups—bus assistants who refuse to pay taxes to gang members and long-term 

residents of the United States who return to El Salvador—are not cognizable. See 

Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate 

membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is 

(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) 

defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” 

(quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also 

Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005) (business owners in 

Colombia who rejected demands by narco-traffickers to participate in illegal 

activity was too broad a category to qualify as a particular social group); Reyes v. 

Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2016) (“deportees from the United States 

to El Salvador” are not a particular social group). 
3 16-70988 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Abelar-Perez

failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of any other protected 

ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s 

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random 

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Our conclusion 

is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and 

withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 

(9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no distinction between 

the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Thus, the 

withholding claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Abelar-Perez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Zheng v. Holder, 

644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative); 

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner did 

not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). Thus, the claim for CAT 

relief fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.